# Commonwealth v. Minerd

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 20, 2000 · 562 Pa. 46

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692510

## Case

- **Full name:** COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellee, v. Timothy Paul MINERD, Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 20, 2000
- **Citations:** 562 Pa. 46; 753 A.2d 225; 2000 Pa. LEXIS 1520
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Nigro
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 82 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692510

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that relevant evidence “logically tends to establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding a material fact.” (citation and quotation marks omitted)
- concluding trial court did not err in allowing expert to testify regarding her inconclusive examination results of her physical examination of the child victims
- holding that the jury “was able to accept or reject any part of the expert’s testimony”

## Opinion text

*60 NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I join Justice Cappy’s majority opinion for very much the same reasons that I joined Madame Justice Newman’s majority opinion in Commonwealth v. Hawk, 551 Pa. 71 , 709 A.2d 373 (1998). 1 Like the expert testimony proffered by the defendant in Hawk , which concerned a negative rape kit test result, the expert testimony proffered by the prosecution in the instant case, which concerned the results of physical examinations of the victims, is both relevant under the standard set forth in Commonwealth v. Spiewak, 533 Pa. 1 , 617 A.2d 696 (1992) 2 , and more probative than prejudicial. Thus, the majority correctly concludes that the Superior Court did not err in finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that the expert testimony was admissible.
. I filed a concurring opinion in Hawk solely to address concerns raised by the dissent regarding the relevancy of the expert testimony at issue in the appeal.
. Under Spiewak , "[e]vidence is relevant if it tends to logically establish a material fact in the case, tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, or supports a reasonable inference or presumption regarding the existence of a material fact." Spiewak, 533 Pa. at 8 , 617 A.2d at 699 .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9692510. Public record. Not legal advice.